Item 7 - Action MWMC Fac. Plan - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN TESTIMONY AT EUGENE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MWMC WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN AND SDC METHODOLOGY Improvement Fee (Bottom of Page 12 through Middle of Page 16) The development of the improvement fee methodology was presented and discussed at numerous SDC Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) sessions from January through March 2004 and was modified to incorporate their input. The CAC provided a majority recommendation on the "Existing and future facility cost allocation" topic (see March 31, 2004, memorandum from CAC to MWMC.) The June 13, 2004, HBALC letter attempts to discredit the SDC Methodology by stating that the capacity that has been identified to serve growth in Table C-1 of the Methodology is not used in the SDC rate calculation. However, the capacity needs are used directly in the SDC rate calculation as illustrated by: · Presentation to the CAC at the February 25, 2004, meeting (see meeting minutes) · Presentation to the CAC at the March 10, 2004, meeting (see meeting minutes) · Packet provided to the Eugene City Council June 14, 2004, Public Hearing These examples demonstrate that the capacity needed to serve growth for each capacity parameter as presented in Tables C-1 and C-3 of the SDC Methodology is explicitly used in the SDC rate calculations. From the middle of page 13 through the middle of page 16, the June 13, 2004, HBALC letter discusses a specific project - Headworks Expansion. A similar discussion was presented in the May 3, 2004, HBALC letter addressed to MWMC. CH2M HILL responded with a written point-by-point response to the May 3rd letter. This response was submitted into the public record at the May 6, 2004, MWMC meeting and pointed out many flaws in the HBALC assessment. One error that the Home Builder's representative continues to make is to attempt to add average flow capacity to peak flow capacity to obtain a "total capacity." As we have previously indicated, this addition is meaningless and adds unnecessary confusion to the issue of MWMC's SDC discussion. The Home Builder representative's approach would be analogous to mixing 1 cup of water with 3 cups of oil and saying you have 4 cups of wateroil. Well of course you don't have wateroil you have a mixture of 1 cup water and 3 cups oil. It is inappropriate to add Average Flow and Peak flow together and say you have "Total Flow;" the sum has no meaning. The example presented in the HBALC attempts to do this math and it does not make sense. The units of measure are the same, million gallons per day (mgd), but what you are measuring is different. As indicated previously, we pointed this out in detailed response to the May 3, 2004, HBOLC letter, which contained numerous errors and mis-informed statements. Accordingly, as noted in our letter dated June 14, 2004, we have deferred to MWMC legal counsel with respect to compliance with legislative requirements for fee adoption. June 14, 2004 Letter from Home Builders Association of Lane County, Re: MW-MC Facility Plan and SDC List Page 3, first full paragraph, second sentence: 'The cost of the project allocated to growth are not based on the actual capacity needed to serve growth ' C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\CEEXELI--~LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES\OLK3B~AIS HBALETTERSFROMCH2 FINAL DRAFT 061804.DOC 3